Nitrogen Fertilizer Requirement of Feed and Malting Barley Compared to Wheat, 2011

Transcription

1 Nitrogen Fertilizer Requirement of Feed and Malting Barley Compared to Wheat, 2011 Item Type text; Article Authors Ottman, M. J. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Journal Forage and Grain: A College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Report Download date 25/06/ :02:26 Link to Item

2 Nitrogen Fertilizer Requirement of Feed and Malting Barley Compared to Wheat, 2011 M. J. Ottman Summary Barley is generally thought to require less nitrogen fertilizer than wheat, but how much less has not been clearly documented. The purpose of this study is to compare the nitrogen fertilizer requirements of barley and wheat. A study was conducted at the Maricopa Agricultural Center testing the response of 2 durum wheats (Kronos and Havasu), 2 bread wheats (Yecora Rojo and Joaquin), 2 feed barleys (Baretta and Nebula), and 2 malting barleys (Conrad and Moravian 69) to 7 rates of nitrogen fertilizer (0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 lbs N/acre). The surface soil was relatively high in nitrate at planting (19 ppm NO 3 -N) contributing an estimated 76 lbs N/acre. Maximum yield was obtained at 156 (durum), 147 (wheat), 137 (feed barley), and 127 (malting barley) lbs N/acre. However, since the yield of durum and bread wheat was higher than feed and malting barley, the nitrogen fertilizer per 100 pounds of grain yield was similar for these crop types (~2.37 lbs N per 100 lbs of grain). If the 76 lbs N/a of nitrogen estimated to be available from the surface soil were included, then about 3.62 lbs of N would have been required per 100 lbs of grain for both wheat and barley. The N requirement reported in this study does not include the extra N potentially needed for wheat to obtain acceptable protein levels. In conclusion, wheat required more nitrogen fertilizer than barley to obtain maximum yield in our study, but the amount of nitrogen fertilizer required per 100 pounds of grain was similar. Introduction Barley has a reduced requirement for nitrogen fertilizer compared to wheat since it does not require late season applications to boost grain protein. Furthermore, some evidence also exists that barley requires less nitrogen fertilizer than wheat for equivalent yields independent of the grain protein issue. If we assume that wheat and barley have equivalent grain yields but that barley has 12% protein in the grain compared to 14% for wheat, then barley would require at least 15% less nitrogen fertilizer than wheat. However, this does not account for differences between wheat and barley in their nitrogen fertilizer requirement during the season and their relative efficiency in extracting nitrogen from the soil. Most of the barley grown in Arizona is used for feed. However, some malting barley has been grown in the past. Malting companies require that barley have grain protein content below 10-12%. Producing malting barley with low grain protein as been difficult in Arizona in the past, and may require that the grower apply low nitrogen fertilizer rates and risk that yields will be low as a result. So, if Arizona is ever to become a major supplier of malting barley, the nitrogen fertilizer requirement of this crop needs to be studied in order to determine the nitrogen fertilizer rate that provides acceptably low grain protein and optimum grain yield. Nitrogen fertilizer is a major cost in barley production, and growers may benefit from knowing how barley responds to nitrogen fertilizer especially compared to wheat, which they may be more familiar with. The objective of this study is to evaluate nitrogen fertilizer requirement of feed and malting barley compared to wheat. Procedure A study was conducted at the University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Center to evaluate nitrogen fertilizer requirement of feed and malting barley compared to wheat. The soil type was a Casa Grande sandy loam with a preplant soil nitrate level of 19 ppm NO 3 -N and phosphate level of 2.0 ppm P. N fertilizer treatments were split equally between applications at planting and the 5-leaf stage for total N rates of 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 lbs N/acre using urea (46-0-0) as a N fertilizer source. The N fertilizer was applied by hand to plots 52 inches x 20 ft in 2011 Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 30

3 size. The seed was planted with a cone planter in seven rows spaced 6 inches apart and 20 ft long. The seeding rate was approximately 100 lbs/acre for durum varieties and 85 lbs/acre for barley varieties. The experimental design of was a split plot with N rates (0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 lbs N/acre) as main plots and varieties (Kronos and Havasu durums, Yecora rojo and Jaoquin wheat, Baretta and Nebula feed barley, and Conrad and Moravian 69 malting barley) as subplots, and replicated 4 times. Cultural practices are listed in Table 1. The following data was collected: grain yield, straw yield, total yield, harvest index, test weight, plant height, lodging, heading, physiological maturity, yellow berry, grain protein, straw N concentration and light interception on Feb 10 at the 5 leaf stage. Grain was harvested with a small plot combine and yields are expressed on an as is moisture basis. HVAC was determined from 10 g of seed. Physiological maturity is defined as when the glumes turn brown. Light interception was determined by dividing the average of six readings from a sunfleck ceptometer at ground level by incident light level. Grain protein was expressed on a 12% moisture basis and straw N was expressed on a 0% moisture basis. Abbreviations for the sources of varieties are: APB = Arizona Plant Breeders, WPB = Western Plant Breeders, WWW = World Wide Wheat, UC = University of California. Results and Discussion This growing season was characterized by below average temperature overall and below average rainfall (Table 2). Even though the overall temperature was average, February and May were colder than average and December was warmer than average. Unusually cold weather during February in particular slowed the crop growth and could have caused unseen damage, although the only damage evident was some leaf tip burn. Grain yield increased with nitrogen fertilizer application for all the varieties tested (Table 3). The yield increase could be described by a linear and/or quadratic function. Plant height of Kronos, Yecora Rojo, and Conrad was increased by N rate. Light interception of Kronos was increased by N rate. Heading of Conrad, maturity of Baretta, and maturity averaged over varieties was delayed by N rate. Harvest index, test weight, lodging, yellow berry, grain protein, and straw N were not affected by N rate. Differences among varieties were detected for all variables measured. The only variety x N rate interaction detected was for lodging. Maximum yield was obtained at 156 (durum), 147 (wheat), 137 (feed barley), and 127 (malting barley) lbs N/acre, However, since the yield of durum and bread wheat was higher than feed and malting barley, the nitrogen fertilizer per 100 pounds of grain yield was similar for these crop types (~2.37 lbs N per 100 lbs of grain). If the 76 lbs N/a of nitrogen estimated to be available from the surface soil were included, then about 3.62 lbs of N would have been required per 100 lbs of grain for both wheat and barley. The N requirement reported in this study does not include the extra N potentially needed for wheat to obtain acceptable protein levels. It is worth noting that the differences among varieties with crop types were large. In conclusion, wheat required more nitrogen fertilizer than barley to obtain maximum yield in our study, but the amount of nitrogen fertilizer required per 100 pounds of grain was similar. Acknowledgments Financial support for this project was received from the Arizona Grain Research and Promotion Council and the Arizona Crop Improvement Association. The technical assistance of Richard and Glenda Simer and Mary Comeau is greatly appreciated Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 31

4 Table 1. Cultural practices for the small grain nitrogen trial at Maricopa. Cultural information Previous crop Soil texture Maricopa Fallow Sandy Loam Nominal planting date 12/14/10 Effective planting date 12/15/10 Irrigation dates (amount) 12/15 (3.21 in.) 1/27 (3.89 in.) 2/25 (3.59 in.) 3/17 (3.89 in.) 3/31 (2.39 in.) 4/13 (5.38 in.) 4/25 (4.08 in.) Total (26.43 in.) Nitrogen dates (amount) 12/15 (0 to 90 lbs N/a) as /27 (0 to 90 lbs N/a) as Total = 0 to 180 lbs N/a Phosphorus (date, amount, fertilizer) Pesticides (date) 12/15 (50 lbs P 2 O 5 /a) None Harvest date 5/26 Table 2. Climatic data from AZMET for Maricopa during the 2011 growing season compared to the long-term average. Climate variable Unit Year(s) Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Dec-May Max ºF Temp. ºF Avg Min ºF Temp. ºF Avg Ppt. inches inches Avg Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 32

5 Table 3. Response of small grain varieties to nitrogen rate at Maricopa in Crop types planted were durum (Kronos and Havasu), wheat (Yecora Rojo and Joaquin), feed barley (Baretta and Nebula), and malting barley (Conrad and Moravian 69). The surface soil was relatively high in nitrate at planting time (19 ppm NO 3 -N). Variety Grain Harvest Test Plant Light interception Head- Matur- Yellow Grain Straw N rate yield Index weight height Lodging ing ity berry protein N lbs N/a lbs/a % lbs/bu inches % % % % % Kronos /24 5/ /24 5/ /24 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ linear * ns ns * ns * ns ns ns ns ns quadratic ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns * ns Havasu /26 5/ /26 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /27 5/ /26 5/ linear * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns quadratic ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Yecora /27 5/ rojo /28 5/ /28 5/ /30 5/ /30 5/ /29 5/ /27 5/ linear ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns quadratic ns ns ns * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Joaquin /26 5/ /27 5/ /26 5/ Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 33

6 /27 5/ /27 5/ /25 5/ /27 5/ linear ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns quadratic ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Baretta /28 5/ /30 5/ /26 5/ /28 5/ /29 5/ /28 5/ /28 5/ linear ** ns ns ns ns ns ns * ---- ns ns quadratic ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ---- ns ns Nebula /25 4/ /25 4/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /25 5/ /24 5/ linear * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ---- ns ns quadratic ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ---- ns ns Conrad /19 4/ /20 4/ /19 4/ /19 4/ /20 4/ /22 4/ /22 4/ linear * ns ns * ns ns * ns ---- ns ns quadratic * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ---- ns ns Moravian /1 5/ /3 5/ /3 5/ /3 5/ Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 34

7 /3 5/ /3 5/ /3 5/ linear ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ---- ns ns quadratic ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ---- ns ns Avg /26 4/ /26 5/ /26 5/ /26 5/ /27 5/ /27 5/ /26 5/ linear ** ns ns ns ns ns ns * ns ns ns quadratic ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Kronos Avg /24 5/ Havasu /26 5/ Y. Rojo /28 5/ Joaquin /26 5/ Baretta /28 5/ Nebula /25 4/ Conrad /20 4/ Moravian /2 5/ LSD ns Variety x N rate ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 2011 Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 35

8 Table 4. Regression analysis of grain yield vs. N rate for small grain varieties using the equation y=a+bx 2 +cx 3. Crop Type Variety Coef. of determination (r 2 ) Maximum N rate Maximum yield N rate/ 100 lb yield lbs N/a lbs/a lbs N/ 100 lbs grain Wheat Durum Kronos Havasu Bread wheat Y. Rojo Joaquin Barley Feed Baretta Nebula Malting Conrad Moravian Durum Bread wheat Feed barley Malting barley Wheat Barley Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona 36